[Jeremy]

If this influences your decision, we will be including the size on the nearest cache page.

This post has been edited by Jeremy: 10 September 2004 - 09:08 AM

[nfa]

No, but I like the idea of adding size information to all cache listings.

nfa

[bigredmed]

Like the planned icon and the cache type change.

[CoyoteRed]

I voted "no" because it might be better to add a designation of whether the cache has trade items.

It seems as though the major problem people are having is that most micros are non-trading caches. However, not all micros are non-trading.

That's not to mention plenty of these micros are offsets or multis.

Making a type that is a non-trading micro traditional, IMHO, wouldn't solve the problem.

I do see though that adding a trading desgination wouldn't be easy and it would (I think) involve a schema change.

I've already posted more details and thoughts on the subject.

[YuccaPatrol]

My next micro is going to contain some small trade items. There is realy no reason that a film cannister cannot hold a couple small pins, flattened pennies from the neat machine at the zoo, etc.

I think of a regular cache as one that I could trade items larger than coins or drop off a travel bug.

I think of a micro as a cache which I can only sign the log.


I think it would be great to have micros listed as their own type cache because they really are significantly different from ammo boxes full of mc-toys

[robertlipe]

No. After a long time trying to get people to distinguish between HUNT TYPE and CONTAINER TYPE why backpedal? The lines are already fuzzy between the two (and were worse in the past) but having micro as a TYPE instead of a CONTAINER precludes, say, a letterbox or multi micro.

[Jeremy]

Why do you assume I'm backpedaling? I just want to know the opinion of the forum community.

[Team Perks]

I vote "no" as well. Given the changes already planned for more readily displaying the cache size (which I think will certainly be beneficial!), differentiating micros as a separate "type" of cache is unnecessary.

[briansnat]

No. It would unecessarialy complicate things. A micro can be a multi, traditional, offset or puzzle cache, so do we then have icons for micro/puzzles, or traditional/micro "hybrids"?

I think as long as you put the size on the search results, that would satisfy most peoples desire to be able to filter them out (or in). A while ago I suggested making the following change to the serrch results page:


From terrain and diffuculty:

(D/T)
______
(1.5/3)

To terrain, difficulty and size::

(D/T/S)
______
(1.5/3/M)

[Renegade Knight]

I went for yes. It's still a traditional cache, but micro changes the means and methods of hunting. It changes the ability to leave a travel bug at the cache and some other factors that have an impact on my caching.

If micro's had their own iceon on maps for example I would plan a day to hit the larger caches if there was a choice and since I can't keep up with all the caches now there is a choice normally.

[CompuCash]

Team PerkyPerks, on Sep 10 2004, 11:05 AM, said:

I vote "no" as well. Given the changes already planned for more readily displaying the cache size (which I think will certainly be beneficial!), differentiating micros as a separate "type" of cache is unnecessary.

that is why I voted no -

[southdeltan]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 09:58 AM, said:

Why do you assume I'm backpedaling? I just want to know the opinion of the forum community.

I don't think you're backpeddling - but I am confused - I though your general opinion was polls were pointless?

Instead of asking just the minority of geocachers that makes up the forums - why not have a poll for ALL registered members of the website - while not entirely scientific it'd give you a better gauge of what the community thinks. (Set up a poll, display it in several spots on the website and mention it in the new cache notices).

----

I think the changes are great - but I really think micros warrant a seperate type.

People refer to them as if they have their own type already.

sd

[AJK]

briansnat, on Sep 10 2004, 10:11 AM, said:

No. It would unecessarialy complicate things. A micro can be a multi, traditional, offset or puzzle cache, so do we then have icons for micro/puzzles, or traditional/micro "hybrids"?

I think as long as you put the size on the search results, that would satisfy most peoples desire to be able to filter them out (or in). A while ago I suggested making the following change to the serrch results page:


From terrain and diffuculty:

(D/T)
______
(1.5/3)

To terrain, difficulty and size::

(D/T/S)
______
(1.5/3/M)

IMHO, a perfect solution.

It would be nice to have GSAK change the icons for a micro vs. larger, but that's a GSAK thing.

Voted a definite No.

[southdeltan]

CompuCash, on Sep 10 2004, 10:13 AM, said:

Team PerkyPerks, on Sep 10 2004, 11:05 AM, said:

I vote "no" as well.  Given the changes already planned for more readily displaying the cache size (which I think will certainly be beneficial!), differentiating micros as a separate "type" of cache is unnecessary.

that is why I voted no -

Quote

If this influences your decision, we will be including the size on the nearest cache page.

I think that mentioning this proposed change in conjuction with the poll is going to skew that results. A lot of people that think micros are a seperate type are gonna be happy enough to just vote no due to this fix/solution/change.

[wimseyguy]

briansnat, on Sep 10 2004, 10:11 AM, said:

No. It would unecessarialy complicate things. A micro can be a multi, traditional, offset or puzzle cache, so do we then have icons for micro/puzzles, or traditional/micro "hybrids"?

I think as long as you put the size on the search results, that would satisfy most peoples desire to be able to filter them out (or in). A while ago I suggested making the following change to the serrch results page:


From terrain and diffuculty:

(D/T)
______
(1.5/3)

To terrain, difficulty and size::

(D/T/S)
______
(1.5/3/M)

Ditto AJK-this is a perfect solution. Micros are not types, they are sizes and can be incorporated into any type of cache hidden. Well done BS.

[leatherman]

CoyoteRed, on Sep 10 2004, 09:27 AM, said:

It seems as though the major problem people are having is that most micros are non-trading caches.

That's a bad assumption.

All the complaints I've seen in the forums and from local cachers are about the over saturation of junk micros. Trade items aren't even an issue.

I find micros uninteresting, unimaginative, and the shotgun over saturation destroys a query.

As for the issue, I think it will only benefit non members. Those that can't filter out search results on there nearest cache page.

So I didn't vote.

[Pantalaimon]

I voted yes... but I thought polls were useless?

Edit: Whoops, I misspoke. They aren't useless, they have "a pointless nature."

This post has been edited by Pantalaimon: 10 September 2004 - 10:41 AM

[strikeforce1]

Renegade Knight, on Sep 10 2004, 02:11 PM, said:

I went for yes.  It's still a traditional cache, but micro changes the means and methods of hunting.  It changes the ability to leave a travel bug at the cache and some other factors that have an impact on my caching.

I voted "Yes" too. Ditto RK's comments
By knowing it's a micro right off the bat, I can leave most of my carry/trade items in the auto, just taking "very small things only". That would make my bag 75% lighter to carry. SF1

[ZackJones]

I voted yes. Anything I can to to help me avoid micro's is good

Zack

[jeff35080]

I voted.

I like girls.

[JMBella]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 09:02 AM, said:

If this influences your decision, we will be including the size on the nearest cache page.

I voted No. If you will be including those graphics that might solve a good portion of player's gripes. Why not let that settle in for a while and see how it goes. As others have said, micros can be multis, puzzle or traditional caches. It seams it might add more problem that it solves.

[CoyoteRed]

leatherman, on Sep 10 2004, 01:31 PM, said:

That's a bad assumption.

All the complaints I've seen in the forums and from local cachers are about the over saturation of junk micros. Trade items aren't even an issue.

That may very well be.

I guess what sticks out in my mind are the folks that complain about having to visit the cache page from the cache list to see if it's a micro because they, or family members, like to trade.

I have to admit we don't have the problem some forum members are complaining about in our area, so I may very well be out of touch. The junkiest of caches around here aren't the micros.

If micro-sized, non-trading traditionals are broken out by type I would certainly hope they are called something other than "micro." There is enough confusion between TYPE and SIZE already.

[Jeremy]

Polls are generally useless but if done correctly (as in unbiased question and answer options) and rarely, they can be useful.

Like in this case, we're running a tie (so far). In the case of doing something as drastic as changing a size into a type, there needs to be an overwhelming interest in having it happen.

It seems to me still that most folks want to filter out micros which is the reason for changing the type. As leatherman said, premium members can already filter these kinds of sizes out of their queries.

[Gaddiel and OrangeDanish]

All I really want is a new cache SIZE between micro and regular. I don't think a new cache TYPE is really warranted.

[Pantalaimon]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 10:46 AM, said:

Polls are generally useless but if done correctly (as in unbiased question and answer options) and rarely, they can be useful.

I agree.

I just wanted to see you write it.

[The Leprechauns]

Micro is a size, not a type, and I voted "no" in order to avoid confusing the concepts. In my simple mind, cache types are defined quite broadly:

1. Traditional cache: there's a container at the coordinates.
2. Multicache: there's more than one set of coordinates, and one or more of them will have a container.
3. Mystery/Puzzle cache: there's a container, but to find it you need to do something a bit more than just go to one or more sets of coordinates.
4. Virtual: there's no container, and you're told where to find the object.
5. Locationless: there's no container, and you tell the owner where you found the object.
6. Letterbox Hybrid: there's a container, but it also has a letterbox stamp in it, and may be cross-listed on a letterbox site with letterbox clues.
7. Webcam: there's no container, there's no object, but you get your picture taken at the coordinates.
8. Event: there's no container, but there are lots of people and some food at the coordinates.
9. CITO Event: there's no container except for trash bags, but there are lots of people and trash at the coordinates.

Within this broad structure, size is but one attribute -- perhaps the most important attribute -- that helps define the hunt and the experience one can expect when searching for cache types 1, 2, 3 or 6. A multicache can have two micros and no ammo box, or three virtual stages leading to an ammo box, etc. A letterbox can be a "small" cache or a 5 gallon bucket. The concepts of size and cache type have too many variations to capture without unduly complicating an already poorly understood classification system. We already see that with multicaches that are purely virtual stages thrown together into one virtual "tour," and with confusion between mystery/puzzle vs. multicache.

The addition of the size attribute on the search results page ought to go a long ways towards differentiating micros for those who find the current means for doing this to be inadequate.

This is a useful poll because it was set up with clear answers instead of choices reflecting an editorial bias, as so often happened in the past. Thanks for soliciting our views.

[southdeltan]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 10:46 AM, said:

Polls are generally useless but if done correctly (as in unbiased question and answer options) and rarely, they can be useful.

Like in this case, we're running a tie (so far). In the case of doing something as drastic as changing a size into a type, there needs to be an overwhelming interest in having it happen.

It seems to me still that most folks want to filter out micros which is the reason for changing the type. As leatherman said, premium members can already filter these kinds of sizes out of their queries.

I pretty much figured you'd say this, based on previous polls.

I know there are sock puppets, I know not everybody votes - but I'd say half is pretty good indication that this is a major issue for a lot of people.

I don't know why you even ran the poll. You knew you wouldn't get 90% - and even if you did - you could just say that such a statistically small number of forum users (who are a statistically smaller percentage of geocachers) voted that it was meaningless.

Results LESS than a large majority - not enough interest.
Results MORE than a large majority - not enough interest.



sd

[southdeltan]

The Leprechauns, on Sep 10 2004, 10:51 AM, said:

This is a useful poll because it was set up with clear answers instead of choices reflecting an editorial bias, as so often happened in the past. Thanks for soliciting our views.

Don't forget the link to the proposed change. Not like SEVERAL people haven't said that specifically changed their vote.

------

I think you hit the nail on the head - size is probably the MOST important feature of a cache.

Hunting for something small is different than something large - as obvious as that is it seems to confuse some.

sd

[Jeremy]

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 11:58 AM, said:

but I'd say half is pretty good indication that this is a major issue for a lot of people.

I didn't ask if it was a major issue for people. I asked if micros should have their own type. I can't gauge the emotion for a person picking yes or no in this poll.

[YuccaPatrol]

I've thought about it and want to change my vote! Micro is a description of cache size and is not a description of its type. I now vote "NO!"

As a wise man once said, "I voted for it before I voted against it!"

[southdeltan]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 11:58 AM, said:

but I'd say half is pretty good indication that this is a major issue for a lot of people.

I didn't ask if it was a major issue for people. I asked if micros should have their own type. I can't gauge the emotion for a person picking yes or no in this poll.

Heh, thanks for nitpicking on my choice of words.

sd

[Pantalaimon]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 11:58 AM, said:

but I'd say half is pretty good indication that this is a major issue for a lot of people.

I didn't ask if it was a major issue for people. I asked if micros should have their own type. I can't gauge the emotion for a person picking yes or no in this poll.

What if we use alot of frogs.

Example:

I
w a n t
m i c r o s
t o
b e
...

Does that help?

Edit: I would have finished the sentence, but previously unbeknownst to me, there is a limit on the number of emoticons you can post in one post! (shocked smiley)

This post has been edited by Pantalaimon: 10 September 2004 - 11:09 AM

[bamageek]

Quote

It seems to me still that most folks want to filter out micros which is the reason for changing the type. As leatherman said, premium members can already filter these kinds of sizes out of their queries.

I think if the "seach results" page could indicate both the cache type and container size somehow that would be fine. I like the way its currently set up where the container type and cache type are seperate. That gives you a bit more flexability I think to "mix and match". I usually don't look at the container size until I get to a cache site anyway.

This post has been edited by bamageek: 10 September 2004 - 11:27 AM

[Jeremy]

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 12:03 PM, said:

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 11:58 AM, said:

but I'd say half is pretty good indication that this is a major issue for a lot of people.

I didn't ask if it was a major issue for people. I asked if micros should have their own type. I can't gauge the emotion for a person picking yes or no in this poll.

Heh, thanks for nitpicking on my choice of words.

sd

Why? It isn't taken out of context. The existing data does in no way indicate that "this is a major issue for a lot of people." I've had enough circular reasoning for one day, thank you.

[southdeltan]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 12:03 PM, said:

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 11:58 AM, said:

but I'd say half is pretty good indication that this is a major issue for a lot of people.

I didn't ask if it was a major issue for people. I asked if micros should have their own type. I can't gauge the emotion for a person picking yes or no in this poll.

Heh, thanks for nitpicking on my choice of words.

sd

Why? It isn't taken out of context. The existing data does in no way indicate that "this is a major issue for a lot of people." I've had enough circular reasoning for one day, thank you.

Honestly, it wouldn't matter if a majority of the people voted that it deserves it's own type. The results might get dismissed because not enough people voted (it has happened before...).

I think the fact that people continually bring this up speaks for itself.

I'm not sure what circular reasoning is - so I won't comment.

southdeltan

This post has been edited by southdeltan: 10 September 2004 - 11:52 AM

[BigHank]

Thanks for asking for opinions on this. I vote to leave things as they are. If I want to know if it's a micro or whatever, I just read the cache page before I go. I do think that when the cache owner submits the page for approval, it should contain an indication in the narrative as to whether or not the cache can handle small trade items, and perhaps could give an example.

[caderoux]

What about Fakes? - we've got all kinds of fake stuff popping up. Arguably that should be mystery/puzzle or its own fake type - probably has more merit as being a type than micro - but part of the attraction of doing these is not knowing it is a fake and having to make some kind of mental leap and get the rush.

We could add so many 'types' or 'hunt styles' with a sport/pastime/hobby/game as creative as this, all attempting to define and categorize everything. If micro is used as an indication of hunt style, then I've seen plenty ammo boxes which are micros. What about mid-sized caches like the smaller peanut butter jars etc.? They are sometimes like micro hunts and sometimes like full-sized hunts. This ain't baseball; the sport itself defies categorization.

I called my most recent multi-cache a puzzle, because the stages did not contain the coordinates of the next cache - only a number which would be used to build up the next and final locations.

But I was 50/50 as to whether I called it a multi or a puzzle (people can't just head to the first location like a traditional multi - they need to read the cache description, so I decided puzzle would be the most considerate choice). Three out of the four stages are micro-sized and the final location is an ammo box. I was trying to work a combination lock into the cache, but I've left that for another cache (and another multi-puzzle dilemma) and I was trying to fit the game I wanted the player to play into the mold of what I had seen done before and making it original and fun all at the same time.

I voted No. But to me, there's no such thing as a bad cache - I generally find something positive about every caching trip - I love exploring and have a overdeveloped sense of curiousity. When I first started out, I didn't like micros much either, but after the first dozen or so, I relaxed and just had fun. Now, I find the trade items rather wearisome, and rarely trade, but I go for all caches no matter what.

[Team Sagefox]

briansnat, on Sep 10 2004, 10:11 AM, said:

...It would unecessarialy complicate things. A micro can be a multi, traditional, offset or puzzle cache, so do we then have icons for micro/puzzles, or traditional/micro "hybrids"?

No because it is not necessary to do so because there would be no change. Currently a multi, offset or puzzle cache container can be of any size and we don't have or need the sub categories you are suggesting. When you search for these types you read the cache page to find container descriptions.

I like the idea of separate type for micros and voted yes. What can it possibly hurt to have these listed separately?

Edit: Edit: Oops. I've never sorted by container type and didn't realize until just now that it already can be done. Doesn't change my vote though. ((Text prior to edit: As already stated in this topic, the ever-growing number of people complaining about micros would be able to filter them out during a search. (Then we won't have to read about how much they hate them!!)))

I like a mix of micro and regular caches and would find it interesting to see them separatly listed.

This post has been edited by Team Sagefox: 10 September 2004 - 12:15 PM

[southdeltan]

Hrm - I've gone a bit off topic so I apologise for that.

----

Back to the question - Should Micros have their own type?

I feel they should - but whatever happened to the cache attribute idea? I've seen that mentioned a lot but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

southdeltan

[caderoux]

This might seem to be a silly question, but if someone is a frequent cacher and hates micros with a passion, don't they already have tools to get them to only caches which will be guaranteed to meet their stringent cache-enjoyment requirements? - like GSAK or Pocket Queries.

[Jeremy]

Team Sagefox, on Sep 10 2004, 01:03 PM, said:

As already stated in this topic, the ever-growing number of people complaining about micros would be able to filter them out during a search. (Then we won't have to read about how much they hate them!!)

If that's the case, creating a type so you can filter micros out is a different issue to debate. If I don't like a multicache where the final container is regular, I don't expect regular-destination-multicaches to be created as a new type.

[Jeremy]

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 01:07 PM, said:

but whatever happened to the cache attribute idea?

hehe. Well you're going off topic again...

[southdeltan]

Jeremy, on Sep 10 2004, 12:12 PM, said:

southdeltan, on Sep 10 2004, 01:07 PM, said:

but whatever happened to the cache attribute idea?

hehe. Well you're going off topic again...

Yea, I guess I am

Sorry, seems like it's a related topic... I guess not related enough

sd

[shawhh]

as is frequently the case, i agree with briansnat on this issue. a no vote please. -harry

[southdeltan]

caderoux, on Sep 10 2004, 12:10 PM, said:

This might seem to be a silly question, but if someone is a frequent cacher and hates micros with a passion, don't they already have tools to get them to only caches which will be guaranteed to meet their stringent cache-enjoyment requirements? - like GSAK or Pocket Queries.

Not everybody that thinks micros should have their own type want to filter them out. Some people just want to know what they're looking at on a search page. Of course, PQ's always come up as an answer for everything and I don't always think that it is an answer... Sometimes it's hard to explain why, but in some cases PQ's clearly aren't the answer...

sd

[caderoux]

So maybe a/the real problem is understanding how much (of the existing - size is an existing piece of information) information to display and how to present it rather than an issue with the type categories?

[Abby's Family]

I agree that if the size is listed in the search results (maybe just near difficulty), that would alleviate 99% of the issue for me. I want to be able to have a summary page of caches and be able to decide which one to hunt based on d/t and size. For example, I tend to avoid micros with my daughter, since she wants to trade. But I will hunt them more exclusively if on my own to save the full size for other times.

I also have a palm with the details of the caches in the area I'm hunting, but I don't want to have to open 6 pages to figure out which 1 is not the micro.

[The Geocache Hunter]

I voted yes. I don't see the issue here. Whats wrong with having a seperate icon for a micro when you are researching caches in the area? If it helps someone plan thier trip then it is a useful tool. If it doesn't matter what the size is to you then treat it the same as a regular and drive on.

Some days I feel like searching for regular caches. Other days I like to look for micros. I don't like it when I am looking for a particular type and have to weed through a dozen pages to figure out what is or isn't what I am looking for.

PQs are great but you can't always get them on demand anytime you want one. Plus you have to be a premium member to get them. Its probably safe to say most Geocachers are not premium members and can probably benefit from a icon designating micros.

[robertlipe]

I said you're backpedaling because it blurs the distinction between container type (what you're hunting) and cache type (how you hunt for it). Lep pretty well summed it up for me. Cache type and container type are two different attributes. If the coordinates take you to a thing with a logbook, it's type traditional - that's what we've spent all this time hammering into the placers and approvers, right? Containers are a different axis in the equation that may refine your hunt, but it's really not a different hunt.

I also agree that putting the the container type on the search page should go a long way toward satisfying those that don't want to use pocket queries effectively.

[Spencersb]

Renegade Knight, on Sep 10 2004, 10:11 AM, said:

I went for yes.  It's still a traditional cache, but micro changes the means and methods of hunting.  It changes the ability to leave a travel bug at the cache and some other factors that have an impact on my caching.

If micro's had their own iceon on maps for example I would plan a day to hit the larger caches if there was a choice and since I can't keep up with all the caches now there is a choice normally.

This is the same reason I voted yes. I recently went after FTF on this new cache.
Someone beat me there, but had not found it yet, so we both hunted...for well over an hour! It says "traditional," and it was in woods with big piles of logs and brush. I'm telling you, you could have hidden a 55 gallon drum in there! Finally called in the calvary (the hider), who gave us a couple of hints. I'm kneeling on the ground in the underbrush with my cell phone, thinking as he's talking to me, when...I'll be D#$%! It was literally 3 feet from me! I bet I had brushed against it at least twice while looking! It's big enough for small trade items, but I thought sure I was looking for an ammo can!

This post has been edited by Spencersb: 10 September 2004 - 01:36 PM